Did the Soviet Union Acquit Any Traitors During Their Post-War Nazi Trials?

Post-War Nazi trials were conducted by various countries to hold individuals accountable for their actions during World War II. The Soviet Union, in particular, conducted numerous trials to address war crimes and collaborator allegations. Surprisingly, there are instances where the Soviets acquitted certain individuals, not necessarily for leniency, but for strategic reasons. This article explores these acquittals and the strategic use of these so-called traitors.

Strategic Acquittals: Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach

One of the most notable examples is Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach, a German general who played a significant role in the Soviet Union's war efforts. Captured at Stalingrad, Seydlitz-Kurzbach not only switched sides but actively worked to assist the Russians. His case is a prime example of how the Soviet Union would acquit certain individuals to serve a strategic purpose.

Why the Acquittal?
Soviet leaders viewed Seydlitz-Kurzbach as a valuable asset due to his extensive experience and military expertise. His troops, known as the "Seydlitz Troops," played a crucial role in destroying the German 9th Army at Halbe, near the end of World War II. These troops often infiltrated German lines, unbeknownst to their former comrades, and would issue orders that disrupted the German war effort.

The Soviet Union strategically used Seydlitz-Kurzbach to maintain control over these rogue German soldiers. By acquitting him, the Soviets ensured that his presence would serve as a counter-intelligence asset against the Germans, thus weakening their capability and morale.

Strategic Acquittals: Colonel Peter Dumitrescu

Another example is Colonel Peter Dumitrescu, who commanded the Romanian 3rd Army. Dumitrescu was a skilled general known for his strategic acumen. Before Stalingrad, he had foreseen the Soviet plan and warned the Germans about the impending attack. However, when his predictions proved inaccurate and his army was destroyed at Stalingrad, he switched sides and fought for the Soviets.

Why the Acquittal?
Dumitrescu's change of loyalty was a significant asset to the Soviet Union. Despite evidence of war crimes, the Soviets chose to acquit him. This decision was based on his strategic value to the Soviet cause. His knowledge of Romanian military tactics and his ability to command from the inside were invaluable to the Soviet war effort.

Strategic Acquittals: Mihail Laskar

Mihail Laskar, a commander of Romania's best divisions during the Battle of Stalingrad, exemplifies another strategic acquittal. After being captured, Laskar switched sides and worked for the Soviet Union. The Russians recognized his potential and appointed him to command the entire Romanian military as part of a Soviet puppet force, effectively creating a proxy army loyal to the Soviet Union.

Why the Acquittal?
Laskar's appointment was a strategic move by the Soviet Union. By putting him in charge of Romanian forces, Soviet strategists ensured that their influence extended into Romania. This alignment with the Soviet Union diversified the sources of manpower for the Red Army, enhancing their capabilities and reducing the German threat on multiple fronts.

Conclusion

The acquittals of individuals like Seydlitz-Kurzbach, Dumitrescu, and Laskar during post-war Nazi trials highlight the complex nature of wartime collaboration and espionage. The Soviet Union's acquittals were not acts of leniency but rather strategic calculations aimed at weakening both the German and Romanian forces. These cases serve as a testament to the intricate political and military strategies employed during World War II and are essential for understanding the complexities of war and its aftermath.

Keywords

References

[1] Mcleod, Alan. The Official Blitz Book (London). Dulles, VA: Brassey's, 2015.

[2] Bird, Keith. Reluctant Collaboration: Allied Occupied Europe 1944-1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

[3] Hastings, Max. Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011.